Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

“ A minus for raaus for me is they told me this week I can't use my xair to complete my solo training because I wasn't involved in the building of the kit.  But I can do my endorsements in it. That is silly. They won't let me fly it solo but are happy for me to carry the instructor around for the endorsements. “


I think you will find this is in the CAO 95.55, so it is not a “rule” RAAus has made, but a rule made by CASA.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, clouddancer said:

 

 

“ A minus for raaus for me is they told me this week I can't use my xair to complete my solo training because I wasn't involved in the building of the kit.  But I can do my endorsements in it. That is silly. They won't let me fly it solo but are happy for me to carry the instructor around for the endorsements. “


I think you will find this is in the CAO 95.55, so it is not a “rule” RAAus has made, but a rule made by CASA.

No logic in that; since it is the aircraft which is not trusted to be build without faults.

 

That would go close to being a breach of duty of care by RAA Ltd.

  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, clouddancer said:

 

 

“ A minus for raaus for me is they told me this week I can't use my xair to complete my solo training because I wasn't involved in the building of the kit.  But I can do my endorsements in it. That is silly. They won't let me fly it solo but are happy for me to carry the instructor around for the endorsements. “


I think you will find this is in the CAO 95.55, so it is not a “rule” RAAus has made, but a rule made by CASA.

it is 95.55 but its raaus who i am a member of . i don't care about casa.

  • Sad 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

it is 95.55 but its raaus who i am a member of . i don't care about casa.

If you are an RAaus member then you have automatically accepted your undivided and unequivocal allegiance to CASA and consent to fully endorse and proliferate, without rebuttal, its numerous recommendations regulations, standards, and overarching disciplinary authority... Failure to do so will expose you to acquiring Penalty Points as stipulated within the Annex of The Instrument of the said Act. 🧐

  • Haha 1
  • Winner 1
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Area-51 said:

If you are an RAaus member then you have automatically accepted your undivided and unequivocal allegiance to CASA and consent to fully endorse and proliferate, without rebuttal, its numerous recommendations regulations, standards, and overarching disciplinary authority... Failure to do so will expose you to acquiring Penalty Points as stipulated within the Annex of The Instrument of the said Act. 🧐

i was just thinking that😃.   apparently i made onetrack sad with my casa comment. sorry ot .

Edited by BrendAn
  • Like 1
Posted

Luckily I'm out.

Clear prop , start engine , snuggle into my cockpit , 

And dream " I'm soaring like an eagle " . LoL

I can laugh now .

spacesailor

  • Like 1
Posted
On 14/02/2024 at 4:06 PM, FlyingVizsla said:

It was seriously suggested to me!  Qld car Rego goes on the number of cylinders .... 🙂

Simca Veddettes, beloved by public servants because they were only 2.4L but 8 cylinder and qualified for the highest level of travelling allowance when used for official travel.

  • Helpful 1
  • Informative 2
Posted

now i have learn't that i can train in a 19 after all.  apparently once you transfer a 19 or 28 reg into your name you are automatically classed as the owner builder. i don't know why other than it being raaus way of saying you are fully responsible for the upkeep and airworthiness of said aircraft as opposed to a 55 or 24 which can only be repaired by an authorised person .

  • Like 1
Posted

That doesn't make any sense at all because if the original owner can't be trained in it because the build may have safety issues, the second owner is no safer.

Posted

Is there a difference in “being trained in “ and “being used for training “?

Different concepts to my understanding.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

That doesn't make any sense at all because if the original owner can't be trained in it because the build may have safety issues, the second owner is no safer.

the original owner can be trained in it.

  • Agree 1
Posted
2 hours ago, tillmanr said:

Is there a difference in “being trained in “ and “being used for training “?

Different concepts to my understanding.

huge difference. 

  • Like 1
  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

This price shenanigans could be the start of the end of RAA.

Just a thought from looking from the outside looking in. 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Keith Page said:

This price shenanigans could be the start of the end of RAA.

Just a thought from looking from the outside looking in. 

 

No Kieth,

 

Us lemming members will just suck it up and keep paying as there is nowhere else to go,

well there is but……..

  • Haha 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Keith Page said:

This price shenanigans could be the start of the end of RAA.

Just a thought from looking from the outside looking in. 

 

I wouldn't get too excited Keith, note that this thread started with someone guessing that single and dual set should be the same price. RAA decide what they charge. Every Sipermarket decides what it charges, every business decides what it charges and it wouldn't be the first time that the profit was made on the sales price of one product and another product sold at a lower price, the combined result being greater than if they were both sold at the same price because the cost was the same.

 

The person could have just kept his own business to himself and contacted RAA Ltd.

  • Haha 1
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...